Heated committee hearing on SB 209 over canvasser misconduct standard; public testifies that proposal risks voter disenfranchisement

A contentious hearing on Senate Bill 209 took up a large portion of the House State Agencies & Governmental Affairs Committee’s Oct. 12 session. The bill, sponsored in the House by Rep. Ken Underwood and carried in the Senate by Sen. Kim Hammer, would allow the Arkansas Secretary of State’s office to disqualify signatures — including whole pages of petition signatures collected by a canvasser — when the office finds by a preponderance of the evidence that the canvasser violated state canvassing or criminal statutes during the current election cycle.

The sponsor and Secretary of State officials said the measure is intended to discourage fraud and misrepresentation by paid canvassers and give the office clearer authority to exclude tainted signatures. Representative Ken Underwood presented the bill and invited staff from the Secretary of State’s office to explain current practice. Nathan Lee, chief counsel for the Secretary of State, and Leslie Bellamy, director of elections at that office, described how the office currently reviews signatures, meets with petition sponsors, and removes individual signatures or duplicates when they are found invalid. They said SB 209 would expand the office’s authority to disqualify all signatures tied to a canvasser when evidence shows the canvasser engaged in unlawful or improper conduct.

Public testimony and main concerns: - Multiple civic‑interest witnesses told the committee that the bill would risk disenfranchising lawful signers whose signatures were gathered by a canvasser who later is alleged to have acted improperly. Witnesses said individual signers are not given notice under the proposed language and would have no practical cure if the office removed their signatures. Several speakers said that removing legitimate signatures for misconduct by someone else would leave ordinary Arkansans without a realistic legal remedy because pursuing court review can be costly.

- Attorneys and civic activists raised separation‑of‑powers and due‑process concerns, noting SB 209 would create a quasi‑adjudicative process inside the Secretary of State’s office that uses a preponderance‑of‑the‑evidence standard to disqualify signatures. Those witnesses said claims that a sponsor or canvasser could later sue in court do not address immediate loss of signatures or an affected signer’s lack of direct notice.

Secretary of State procedure and appeals: Secretary of State witnesses said the office already meets with sponsors when it finds potentially invalid signatures and allows sponsors to present scans and documentation. The office described an internal process of review and said sponsors can challenge administrative determinations in court; in contested situations the Supreme Court may appoint a special master to review evidence and advise the court. The office said it would document findings, allow sponsors to submit responses, and that its current practice includes meeting with petition sponsors to attempt to resolve disputes before litigation.

Examples, standards and legal process: Committee members asked how staff would develop and present evidence under the “preponderance” standard and how the rights of individual signers would be protected. Secretary of State officials said the office would gather evidence (for example, identical signatures, notary anomalies, or evidence of canvasser misrepresentation) and then make a determination; if sponsors disagreed they could seek judicial review. Members sought clarification about which court would hear such a challenge and were told the court process often uses a special master whose recommendation goes to the Arkansas Supreme Court.

Public speakers and opposition: People who testified against the bill included petition volunteers, petition sponsors, legal practitioners and civic‑policy groups. Arguments against the proposal included (1) the risk that valid signers would lose a voice in the initiative process because they would not be notified individually if their signature was removed, (2) the limited ability of private citizens to afford court challenges, and (3) the prospect that an executive‑branch determination without a fuller administrative hearing process could be used inconsistently or politicized over time.

Outcome: The committee did not vote on SB 209 during the Oct. 12 morning session. Committee leadership recessed the meeting (the transcript records the committee adjourning to reconvene after the House session) after many members and witnesses spoke; additional testimony scheduled for the afternoon was to be taken when the committee reconvened. Several committee members said they were hearing public concerns and procedural questions, and staff indicated that further rule or drafting clarifications could be needed before the committee acts.

Ending: SB 209 remained under consideration. Committee members asked staff and the Secretary of State’s office for clarifications about administrative procedures, notice to individual signers, and how the office would document and present evidence prior to a signature disqualification.